This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

Search form

You are here

Kosa dachi

I'm looking for thoughts on the practical interpretation of kosa dachi stance. Kosa dachi is found throughout the Matsubayashi-Ryu katas, from the Pinans through advanced katas such as Passai and Chinto.

To me, having your legs crossed with one knee tucked into the back of the other is precarious. I do not accept the explanation that the practitioner is set up in this stance to deliver a uniquely devastating kick.

I do, however, appreciate the force developed when assuming the stance. The body weight is dropped, and frequently the arms are used to generate torque with an accompanying strike as the body is cork-screwed into the stance.

My thoughts:

1. The crossed legs show you the relative position of yours and the opponent's leg.

2. The crossed leg is a hint that the cork-screwing motion should continue.

3. The weight-shift is a hint that your line of attack is shifting relative to your opponent.

All of these things, taken in any combination, involve locking the opponent up and throwing them to the ground.

I always saw it as either controlling your opponents head or body downward and bringing your attack down to vulnerable areas (base of skull, neck, etc). The cross stance versus a front stance would allow more downward force to be brought down as power is compacted. I just can't accept the explanation that its used to attack someone with a vertical backfist.

I read somewhere about a man named Elmar Schmeisser (not sure if I have the spelling right) who said that the cross stance was really a spin or turn in application. You do the cross stance as a symbol in Kata for turning or spinning in place (for a throw or lock) and in application you would do the spin while in Kata you would just cross your feet.

In Taekwondo Poomsae this stance is usually used with a back fist (both single and supported in differen poomsae). If we were to accept that we should spin around the back fist lends it self great for most basic hip throws etc. The back fist portion is where you feed your arm under the oponents arm and the supporting hand is also grabbing the oponent, then you spin as the stance says and you have a throw. It fits in most instances in Taekwondo Poomsae, but I am not sure if it fits in Karate Kata. Most likely it will.

Stuart Anslow also show an application which is difficult to explain but in a nutshell you get the oponents knee in the middle of your feet. You then sink into cross stance and hurt the oponents knee.

Iain opened my eyes to "stances" in his podcast and it all makes sense. However, now I think about it I was already on the ball with how I've been teaching cross-legged stance for years. Consider:

- Picking an object up off the floor whilst maintaining observation and an erect spine. You're also set for strikes. Such as...

- "Unicorn step" and kick. When you step behind and side kick, for example, this stance is the midpoint

- It also trains a setup for Kani Basami. Not very practical I concede, but Martial Arts is allowed to be fun too

- Two of the escapes from rear grabs that we teach our juniors start by crossing the legs to drop centre of gravity whilst laterally moving. By the time I teach these, they've already learned to unicorn step

- It can also be a midpoint in a step away post-strike. I recall Iain teaching this way on seminar

In many of the "official sanctioned" manuals of big MA orgs the stance is often said to be a transitional stance between a step or move. A "frosen image" as you shift from one stance to the next. If we take this as the truth (I dont say it is the truth) then the cross legged stance is not a stance at all, just a frosen image of the performer that moves from one "stance" to the next. Maybe it all started as a way of teaching the new students how to move their bodyweight since the center of gravity is low, and the spine is erect?

Yes it is true of all stances, at least I think the majority in this forum will agree to this, but for the mainstream the focus is on the "finnished" stance, the end of the stances. Most manuals describe the end result of the form: "Long front stance: Here you stand with your feet so and so wide, and so and so long apart with the front knee bent 90-112 degrees and the othe leg straight .....etc" While we on the other hand are more interested in how we got there the manuals are only concerned on how we stand when finished.

The stance this thread is about is one notable exception to this as even the manuals say this is a transitional stance between the stances. So the majority of our "stances" are movements frosen in time just as we are finished while the cross legged stance is seen (in many manuals at least) as a movement frosen in time as we are "on the move" so to speak:-) I find it an interesting fact relevant for thread:-)

That being said there are a lot more uses to this stance (and others) as it has been pointed out earlier on this thread:-)